{"id":191561,"date":"2008-08-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-08-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-reju-thomas-vs-the-national-insurance-on-4-august-2008"},"modified":"2018-08-20T14:26:49","modified_gmt":"2018-08-20T08:56:49","slug":"mr-reju-thomas-vs-the-national-insurance-on-4-august-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-reju-thomas-vs-the-national-insurance-on-4-august-2008","title":{"rendered":"Mr. Reju Thomas vs The National Insurance … on 4 August, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Mr. Reju Thomas vs The National Insurance … on 4 August, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C).No. 37468 of 2004(I)\n\n\n1. MR. REJU THOMAS, VADACKEPARAMBIL,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LIMITED\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. M\/S. MEDICARE SERVICES CLUB,\n\n3. STANDARD CHARTERD GRINDLYAS BANK LTD.,\n\n4. THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.A.KUMAR\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.RAJAN P.KALLIYATH\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR\n\n Dated :04\/08\/2008\n\n O R D E R\n                  M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.\n                    ------------------------------------------\n                    W.P.(C) NO. 37468 OF 2004\n                    ------------------------------------------\n               Dated this the 4th day of August, 2008\n\n\n                               JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
            Whether a Consumer Redressal Forum has power to<\/p>\n
restore a complaint which was dismissed for default, and if not,<\/p>\n
whether a petition under Article 226 or 227 of Constitution of<\/p>\n
India would lie, challenging the order dismissing an application<\/p>\n
filed for restoration of the complaint.\n<\/p>\n
      2.    Petitioner filed a complaint before District Consumer<\/p>\n
Redressal Forum, Ernakulam, numbered as O.P.487 of 2003. It<\/p>\n
was dismissed for default on 18.5.2004. Petitioner filed I.A. 414<\/p>\n
of 2004 (Ext.P2) to restore the complaint. In Ext.P2 petition,<\/p>\n
petitioner contended that he was ready to proceed with the<\/p>\n
complaint and had filed an affidavit in lieu of chief examination<\/p>\n
and on 18.5.2004 he was ready to give evidence and was<\/p>\n
instructed by his counsel to answer the roll call and inform the<\/p>\n
Forum that he is ready to give evidence but unfortunately due to<\/p>\n
his inexperience, he missed the roll call and only after arrival of<\/p>\n
the counsel at 12 a.m. when enquiries were made, it was<\/p>\n
WP(C)37468\/04                  2<\/span><\/p>\n
realised that the complaint was dismissed for default. It was<\/p>\n
contended that this fact was brought to the notice of District<\/p>\n
Forum on the afternoon session and dismissal of the complaint<\/p>\n
was not due to his negligence or willful laches and therefore it is<\/p>\n
to be restored. Under Ext.P3 order, the petition was dismissed<\/p>\n
for the reason that case of the petitioner that he was present in<\/p>\n
Court on 18.5.2004 and that fact was brought to the notice of<\/p>\n
the Forum cannot be accepted as the order sheet does not<\/p>\n
reflect the same and as no sufficient reason was shown to<\/p>\n
restore the complaint, complaint cannot be restored.         This<\/p>\n
petition is filed under Article 226 and 227 of Constitution of<\/p>\n
India to quash Ext.P3 order contending that as the dismissal was<\/p>\n
not due to the negligence or willful laches on the part of the<\/p>\n
petitioner, District Consumer Redressal Forum should have<\/p>\n
restored the complaint and considered the complaint on merit,<\/p>\n
after affording opportunity to the petitioner and therefore the<\/p>\n
order is to be quashed and compliant is to be restored.<\/p>\n
      3.    Learned counsel appearing for petitioner and first<\/p>\n
respondent Insurance Company were heard.\n<\/p>\n
      4.    Learned counsel appearing for petitioner argued that<\/p>\n
though there is no specific provision for restoration of a<\/p>\n
WP(C)37468\/04                   3<\/span><\/p>\n
complaint dismissed for default, District Consumer Redressal<\/p>\n
Forum has inherent jurisdiction to restore a complaint dismissed<\/p>\n
for default. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Apex<\/p>\n
Court in New India Assurance Company Limited v. R.<\/p>\n
Srinivasan (AIR<\/a> 2003 SCC 242). It was pointed out that in<\/p>\n
view of the conflicting decisions a subsequent Bench of the Apex<\/p>\n
Court, in Rajeev Hitendra Pathan & others v. Achyut<\/p>\n
Kashinath Karekar &<\/a> another (2007 (7) SCC 667), referred<\/p>\n
the question to a larger Bench. The learned counsel argued that<\/p>\n
in view of the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court and the<\/p>\n
reference made to larger Bench, it is to be found that District<\/p>\n
Consumer Redressal Forum has jurisdiction to restore a<\/p>\n
complaint to file which was earlier dismissed for default.<\/p>\n
Learned counsel also argued that even if it is found that the<\/p>\n
petitioner could have challenged the order by filing an appeal or<\/p>\n
revision, as the writ petition was admitted and is pending before<\/p>\n
this Court from 2004 onwards, it may not be thrown out<\/p>\n
compelling petitioner to approach another Forum at this belated<\/p>\n
stage. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Apex Court in<\/p>\n
Hirday Narain v. Income Tax Officer, Bareilly (AIR<\/a> 1971<\/p>\n
SC 33) and Thressiamma v. Union of India<\/a> (1999 (2) KLT<\/p>\n
WP(C)37468\/04                    4<\/span><\/p>\n
683).\n<\/p>\n
     5.     Learned counsel appearing for first respondent<\/p>\n
argued that when under amended Section 22A of Consumer<\/p>\n
Protection Act, the National Commission was given power to set<\/p>\n
aside an exparte order, such power was not given either to the<\/p>\n
State Commission or to the District Consumer Redressal Forum<\/p>\n
and therefore District Redressal Forum has no jurisdiction to set<\/p>\n
aside its own order, even if it is an order dismissing the<\/p>\n
complaint for default. Learned counsel pointed out that Section<\/p>\n
15 of the Consumer Protection Act provides for an appeal<\/p>\n
against an order passed by the District Forum and under Section<\/p>\n
13(2)(b) of the Act, the District Forum has jurisdiction to dismiss<\/p>\n
a complaint on the failure of the complainant to appear and pass<\/p>\n
an order exparte on the basis of the evidence brought in by the<\/p>\n
complainant, eventhough the opposite party omits or fails to<\/p>\n
take action to represent the case before the District Forum and<\/p>\n
therefore an order passed exparte dismissing the compliant is an<\/p>\n
appealable order as provided under Section 15.      It  was    also<\/p>\n
pointed out that as provided under Section 17(1)(b) of the Act,<\/p>\n
State Commission has jurisdiction to call for records and pass<\/p>\n
appropriate orders in any consumer dispute, which is pending or<\/p>\n
WP(C)37468\/04                   5<\/span><\/p>\n
has been decided by a District Forum within the State, if it<\/p>\n
appears to the State Commission that District Forum has<\/p>\n
exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law or has failed to<\/p>\n
exercise jurisdiction so vested or has acted in exercise of<\/p>\n
jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity and if so<\/p>\n
petitioner is entitled to file a revision, challenging the order<\/p>\n
dismissing the application filed by him, before the State<\/p>\n
Commission and therefore Article 226 or 227 of Constitution of<\/p>\n
India cannot be invoked and the writ petition is not<\/p>\n
maintainable.\n<\/p>\n
      6.    Section   13   of  the    Consumer    Protection  Act<\/p>\n
(hereinafter referred to as the Act) provides the procedure to be<\/p>\n
complied by the District Forum on admitting a complaint. Sub<\/p>\n
clause (i) and (ii) of clause (b) of subsection 2 of Section 13 of<\/p>\n
the Act empowers the District Forum either to dismiss a<\/p>\n
complaint for default or to pass an exparte order against<\/p>\n
respondents based on the evidence of the complainant. The Act<\/p>\n
does not contain a provision empowering the District Forum<\/p>\n
either to restore a complaint which is dismissed for default or to<\/p>\n
set aside the exparte order passed under Section 13 (2) (b) of<\/p>\n
the Act. This omission cannot be ignored. Section 22A of the<\/p>\n
WP(C)37468\/04                   6<\/span><\/p>\n
Act was inserted by The Consumer Protection Amendment Act<\/p>\n
(Act 62 of 2002) empowering the National Commission to set<\/p>\n
aside an exparte order. Section 22A provides that where an<\/p>\n
order is passed by the National Commission exparte against the<\/p>\n
opposite party or a complainant, the aggrieved party may apply<\/p>\n
to the National Commission to set aside the said order in the<\/p>\n
interest of justice. Even when such a power was granted to the<\/p>\n
National Commission by the Amendment Act, such a power was<\/p>\n
not given either to the District Forum or the State Forum. It is<\/p>\n
also important to take note of the fact that Amendment Act 62 of<\/p>\n
2002 was introduced subsequent to the decision of the Apex<\/p>\n
Court in Jyotsana Aravindkumar Shah v. Bombay Hospital<\/p>\n
Trust<\/a> (1999(4) SCC 325) and also the decision in New India<\/p>\n
Assurance Company Limited v. Srinivasan’s<\/a> case (supra).<\/p>\n
      7.    In Jyotsana Aravindakumar Shah’s case (supra) the<\/p>\n
power of the State Commission to set aside an exparte order was<\/p>\n
considered by the Apex Court. It was held that so long as there<\/p>\n
is no provision in the Act enabling the State Commission to set<\/p>\n
aside an exparte order, it cannot set aside an exparte order.<\/p>\n
Their Lordships held:\n<\/p>\n
             “The State Commission, however, fell into<\/p>\n
WP(C)37468\/04                   7<\/span><\/p>\n
             an error in not bearing in mind that the<\/p>\n
             Act under which it is functioning has not<\/p>\n
             provided it with any jurisdiction to set<\/p>\n
             aside the ex parte reasoned order. It is<\/p>\n
             also seen from the order of the State<\/p>\n
             Commission that it was influenced by the<\/p>\n
             concluding portion of the judgment of the<\/p>\n
             Bombay High Court to the effect that the<\/p>\n
             respondent     (writ   petitioner)  could<\/p>\n
             approach the appellate authority or make<\/p>\n
             an appropriate application before the<\/p>\n
             State Commission for setting aside the ex<\/p>\n
             parte order, if permissible under the law.<\/p>\n
             Here again, the State Commission failed<\/p>\n
             to appreciate that the observation of the<\/p>\n
             High Court would help the respondent, if<\/p>\n
             permissible under the law. If the law does<\/p>\n
             not permit the respondent to move the<\/p>\n
             application for setting aside the ex parte<\/p>\n
             order, which appears to be the position,<\/p>\n
             the order of the State Commission setting<\/p>\n
WP(C)37468\/04                   8<\/span><\/p>\n
             aside the ex parte order cannot be<\/p>\n
             sustained. As stated earlier, there is no<\/p>\n
             dispute that there is no provision in the<\/p>\n
             Act enabling the State Commission to set<\/p>\n
             aside an ex parte order.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      8.    The argument of the learned counsel appearing for<\/p>\n
petitioner is that in view of the subsequent decision it is to be<\/p>\n
found that though the Act does not provide the power, Court has<\/p>\n
the inherent power to set aside an exparte order.<\/p>\n
      9.    The question considered by the Apex Court in New<\/p>\n
India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Sreenivasan (supra) as is<\/p>\n
clear from paragraph 5 of the judgment was whether in view of<\/p>\n
dismissal of the first complaint filed by the respondent therein, a<\/p>\n
second complaint on the same facts and cause of action would<\/p>\n
lie and whether it ought to have been dismissed as not<\/p>\n
maintainable.      Their Lordships considered the power of<\/p>\n
Consumer Redressal Forum under Section 13 and held that<\/p>\n
powers which are available to a civil Court under Code of Civil<\/p>\n
Procedure are made available to District Forum in respect of<\/p>\n
matters enumerated in sub section 4 of Section 13 and<\/p>\n
provisions of Order IX are not made applicable. Their Lordships<\/p>\n
WP(C)37468\/04                     9<\/span><\/p>\n
then held:\n<\/p>\n
            ” 10). We have already indicated above that<\/p>\n
            the Code of Civil Procedure has been<\/p>\n
            applied to the proceedings under the<\/p>\n
            Consumer Protection Act only to a limited<\/p>\n
            extent.  If the intention of the legislature<\/p>\n
            was to apply the provisions of Order 9 also<\/p>\n
            to the proceedings under the Consumer<\/p>\n
            Protection   Act, it would have clearly<\/p>\n
            provided in the Act that the provisions of<\/p>\n
            Order 9 will also be applicable to the<\/p>\n
            proceedings before the District Forum or<\/p>\n
            the State Commission or, for that matter,<\/p>\n
            before the National Commission.        If the<\/p>\n
            legislature itself did not apply the rule of<\/p>\n
            prohibition contained in Order 9 Rule 9(1),<\/p>\n
            it will be difficult for the courts to extend<\/p>\n
            that provision to the proceedings under the<\/p>\n
            Act.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
After laying down that it would be permissible to file a second<\/p>\n
complaint, explaining why the earlier complaint could not be<\/p>\n
WP(C)37468\/04                    10<\/span><\/p>\n
pursued and was dismissed for default, it was held:<\/p>\n
            “18). We only intend to invoke the spirit of<\/p>\n
            the principle behind the above dictum in<\/p>\n
            support of our view that every court or<\/p>\n
            judicial body or authority, which has a duty<\/p>\n
            to decide a lis between two parties,<\/p>\n
            inherently possesses the power to dismiss<\/p>\n
            a case in default. Where a case is called<\/p>\n
            up for hearing and the party is not present,<\/p>\n
            the court or the judicial or quasi-judicial<\/p>\n
            body is under no obligation to keep the<\/p>\n
            matter pending before it or to pursue the<\/p>\n
            matter on behalf of the complainant who<\/p>\n
            had instituted the proceedings. That is not<\/p>\n
            the function of the court or, for that matter<\/p>\n
            of a judicial or quasi-judicial body. In the<\/p>\n
            absence of the complainant, therefore, the<\/p>\n
            court will be well within its jurisdiction to<\/p>\n
            dismiss the complaint for non-prosecution.<\/p>\n
            So also, it would have the inherent power<\/p>\n
            and jurisdiction to restore the complaint on<\/p>\n
WP(C)37468\/04                   11<\/span><\/p>\n
            good cause being shown for the non-<\/p>\n
            appearance of the complainant.”<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
It is relying on this paragraph learned counsel appearing for<\/p>\n
petitioner argued that the Consumer Redressal Forum has the<\/p>\n
power to restore complaint which was dismissed for non<\/p>\n
appearance of the complainant. The learned counsel pointed out<\/p>\n
that taking note of the earlier decision in Jyotsana Aravindkumar<\/p>\n
Shah’s case where a contrary view was taken, a subsequent<\/p>\n
Bench of the Apex Court in Rajeev Hitendra Pathan v. Achyut<\/p>\n
Kashinath Karekar<\/a> (2007 (7) SCC 667) has referred the<\/p>\n
question to a larger Bench and therefore it is to be found that<\/p>\n
Consumer Redressal Forum has the power to restore a<\/p>\n
complaint which was dismissed for default. In Rajeev Hitendra<\/p>\n
Pathan’s case (supra) taking note of paragraph 18 of the<\/p>\n
judgment in New India Assurance case (supra) it was held:<\/p>\n
            “In the latter case i.e. New India Assurance<\/p>\n
            case reference was not made to the earlier<\/p>\n
            decision in Jyotsana case. Further the effect of<\/p>\n
            the amendment to the Act in 2003 whereby<\/p>\n
            Section 22A was introduced has the effect of<\/p>\n
            conferment of power of restoration on the<\/p>\n
WP(C)37468\/04                    12<\/span><\/p>\n
            National Commission, but not to the State<\/p>\n
            Commission.      In view of the divergence of<\/p>\n
            views expressed by coordinate Benches, we<\/p>\n
            refer the matter to a larger Bench to consider<\/p>\n
            the question whether the State Commission<\/p>\n
            has the power to recall the ex parte order.<\/p>\n
            Records be placed before the Hon’ble Chief<\/p>\n
            Justice of India for appropriate orders.”<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
Hence it cannot be said that Apex Court has held that District<\/p>\n
Forum has jurisdiction to restore a complaint dismissed for<\/p>\n
default. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied<\/p>\n
on the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court and<\/p>\n
submitted that it was held that District Forum has the power to<\/p>\n
set aside the exparte order. In St. Joseph’s Hospital v. Jimmy<\/a><\/p>\n
(2001 (2) KLT 514) the learned Single Judge also held that<\/p>\n
power to set aside the exparte order under Order IX was not<\/p>\n
given to the District Forum.        True, relying on New India<\/p>\n
Assurance case it was observed that District Forum has inherent<\/p>\n
power to restore the complaint dismissed for default. But that<\/p>\n
was not the question decided in the said case. The National<\/p>\n
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Harish Chandra<\/p>\n
WP(C)37468\/04                  13<\/span><\/p>\n
v. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (2008 (2) CPR 249<\/p>\n
(NC) also held that Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act<\/p>\n
does not empower a State Commission to review or recall its<\/p>\n
own final order or a complaint.\n<\/p>\n
     10. As stated earlier, when provisions of Order IX of Code<\/p>\n
of Civil Procedure was not made applicable to the Consumer<\/p>\n
Redressal Forum under Section 13 and only other provisions are<\/p>\n
made applicable, Consumer Redressal Forum has no power to<\/p>\n
restore a complaint dismissed for default to file. It is more so<\/p>\n
when sub rule 2 (b) of Section 13 enables the District Forum to<\/p>\n
dismiss a complaint on failure of the complainant to appear<\/p>\n
before it. If that be so, it can only be found that petition filed<\/p>\n
before District Redressal Forum is not maintainable.        If so<\/p>\n
remedy of the petitioner is to file an appeal challenging the<\/p>\n
order dismissing the complaint for default as provided under<\/p>\n
Section 15 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
     11. Though learned counsel for the petitioner relying on<\/p>\n
the decision of Apex Court in Kishore Kumar Khaitan And<\/p>\n
Another v. Praveenkumar Singh ((2006) 3 SCC 312) argued<\/p>\n
that District Consumer Redressal Forum did not properly<\/p>\n
consider the application to restore the complaint and hence the<\/p>\n
WP(C)37468\/04                     14<\/span><\/p>\n
supervisory jurisdiction of this Court is to be invoked. Facts of<\/p>\n
that case are different. In that case trial Court found that there<\/p>\n
was no urgency to grant an exparte order of injunction and<\/p>\n
appellate Court in the appeal did not consider the question in<\/p>\n
the proper manner.         It is under such circumstances their<\/p>\n
Lordships in paragraph 13 held as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
             “The jurisdiction under Article 227 of the<\/p>\n
             Constitution may be restrictive in the sense<\/p>\n
             that it is to be invoked only to correct errors<\/p>\n
             of jurisdiction. But when a court asks itself a<\/p>\n
             wrong question or approaches the question in<\/p>\n
             an improper manner, even if it comes to a<\/p>\n
             finding of fact, the said finding of fact cannot<\/p>\n
             be said to be one rendered with jurisdiction<\/p>\n
             and it will still be amenable to correction at<\/p>\n
             the hands of the High Court under Article<\/p>\n
             227 of the Constitution. The failure to render<\/p>\n
             the necessary findings to support its order<\/p>\n
             would also be a jurisdictional error liable to<\/p>\n
             correction.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     12. Though learned counsel for petitioner also relied on<\/p>\n
WP(C)37468\/04                   15<\/span><\/p>\n
the decisions of Apex Court in Hirday Narain v. I.T. Officer,<\/p>\n
Bareilly (AIR<\/a> 1971 SC 33) in that case it was found that an<\/p>\n
order under Section 35 of Income Tax is not appealable and a<\/p>\n
revision before the Commissioner of Income Tax is maintainable<\/p>\n
and on the date when the petition was filed before the High<\/p>\n
Court the period for moving a revision before the commissioner<\/p>\n
had not expired. In such circumstances it was held:<\/p>\n
             “12). We are unable to hold that because a<\/p>\n
             revision application could have been moved<\/p>\n
             for an order correcting the order of the<\/p>\n
             Income-tax Officer under Section 35, but<\/p>\n
             was not moved, the High Court would be<\/p>\n
             justified in dismissing as not maintainable<\/p>\n
             the petition, which was entertained and was<\/p>\n
             heard on merits.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     13. Though reliance was placed on the Division Bench<\/p>\n
decision of this Court in Thressiamma v. Union of India<\/a><\/p>\n
(1999 (2) KLT 683) what was held therein was only that<\/p>\n
existence of an alternate remedy is not a bar to the<\/p>\n
maintainability of a writ petition, if there is violation of the<\/p>\n
fundamental rights or violation of any Act or Rules or violation of<\/p>\n
WP(C)37468\/04                    16<\/span><\/p>\n
the principles of natural justice. The Division Bench following<\/p>\n
the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in M\/s.Baburam<\/p>\n
Prakash Chandra Maheswari v. Antarim Zila Parishad<\/a>(AIR<\/p>\n
1969 SC 556) held that if there is violation of the principles of<\/p>\n
natural justice or violation of any rule or Act, dismissal of writ<\/p>\n
petition on the ground of alternate remedy is not proper. When<\/p>\n
under Section 13(2) (c)      the District Forum is competent to<\/p>\n
dismiss a complaint on the failure of complainant to appear, it<\/p>\n
cannot be said that the dismissal of the complaint was in<\/p>\n
violation of any rule or Act. When the Act does not empower the<\/p>\n
District Forum, to restore a complaint to file dismissal of the<\/p>\n
petition for restoration, whatever be the ground for dismissal, is<\/p>\n
also not an act in violation of the Act or the Rules. Sub section 3<\/p>\n
of Section 13 specifically provides that “no proceedings<\/p>\n
complying with the procedure laid down in sub section 1 and 2<\/p>\n
shall be called in question in any Court on the ground that the<\/p>\n
principles of natural justice have not been complied with”.<\/p>\n
Therefore the order cannot be challenged on the ground of<\/p>\n
violation of principles of natural justice also. Hence fact that<\/p>\n
writ petition was earlier admitted is also not a ground to quash<\/p>\n
the order of the District Forum which is legal and regular. In<\/p>\n
WP(C)37468\/04                   17<\/span><\/p>\n
such circumstances, the writ petition is not maintainable.<\/p>\n
Petitioner is permitted to challenge the order of the Redressal<\/p>\n
Forum by filing an appeal as provided under Section 15 or a<\/p>\n
revision as provided under Section 17 of the Act. If the appeal<\/p>\n
or revision is filed within two weeks from today, the authority<\/p>\n
shall receive the same and dispose it in accordance with law.<\/p>\n
      Writ petition is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                              M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,
\n                                         JUDGE<\/p>\n
Okb\/-<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Mr. Reju Thomas vs The National Insurance … on 4 August, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 37468 of 2004(I) 1. MR. REJU THOMAS, VADACKEPARAMBIL, … Petitioner Vs 1. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LIMITED … Respondent 2. M\/S. MEDICARE SERVICES CLUB, 3. STANDARD CHARTERD GRINDLYAS BANK LTD., 4. THE […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-191561","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMr. Reju Thomas vs The National Insurance ... on 4 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-reju-thomas-vs-the-national-insurance-on-4-august-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mr. Reju Thomas vs The National Insurance ... on 4 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-reju-thomas-vs-the-national-insurance-on-4-august-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-08-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-08-20T08:56:49+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-reju-thomas-vs-the-national-insurance-on-4-august-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-reju-thomas-vs-the-national-insurance-on-4-august-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mr. Reju Thomas vs The National Insurance … on 4 August, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-08-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-20T08:56:49+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-reju-thomas-vs-the-national-insurance-on-4-august-2008\"},\"wordCount\":3096,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-reju-thomas-vs-the-national-insurance-on-4-august-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-reju-thomas-vs-the-national-insurance-on-4-august-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-reju-thomas-vs-the-national-insurance-on-4-august-2008\",\"name\":\"Mr. Reju Thomas vs The National Insurance ... on 4 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-08-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-20T08:56:49+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-reju-thomas-vs-the-national-insurance-on-4-august-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-reju-thomas-vs-the-national-insurance-on-4-august-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-reju-thomas-vs-the-national-insurance-on-4-august-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mr. Reju Thomas vs The National Insurance … on 4 August, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Mr. Reju Thomas vs The National Insurance ... on 4 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-reju-thomas-vs-the-national-insurance-on-4-august-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mr. Reju Thomas vs The National Insurance ... on 4 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-reju-thomas-vs-the-national-insurance-on-4-august-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-08-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-08-20T08:56:49+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-reju-thomas-vs-the-national-insurance-on-4-august-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-reju-thomas-vs-the-national-insurance-on-4-august-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mr. Reju Thomas vs The National Insurance … on 4 August, 2008","datePublished":"2008-08-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-20T08:56:49+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-reju-thomas-vs-the-national-insurance-on-4-august-2008"},"wordCount":3096,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-reju-thomas-vs-the-national-insurance-on-4-august-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-reju-thomas-vs-the-national-insurance-on-4-august-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-reju-thomas-vs-the-national-insurance-on-4-august-2008","name":"Mr. Reju Thomas vs The National Insurance ... on 4 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-08-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-20T08:56:49+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-reju-thomas-vs-the-national-insurance-on-4-august-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-reju-thomas-vs-the-national-insurance-on-4-august-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-reju-thomas-vs-the-national-insurance-on-4-august-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mr. Reju Thomas vs The National Insurance … on 4 August, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/191561","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=191561"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/191561\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=191561"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=191561"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=191561"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}